Will it ever fly?

[mike carey]

"Comforting" to know that Boeing will be rendering the next Air Force One.

I wonder if Individual 1 knows that the Australian prime minister arrived in Washington on a modified A330.

[Guest]

More cracks forming...

 

Ryanair Holdings Plc Chief Executive Officer Michael O’Leary gave a pessimistic outlook for the resumption by Boeing Co. of deliveries of its grounded 737 Max, saying the carrier has frozen payments to the manufacturer and started talks on recouping costs of the delay.

Deliveries of the aircraft will likely slip “another couple of months” to March or April, he said at an annual shareholders’ meeting Thursday, calling it the biggest operational challenge currently facing the Irish discount airline.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-19/ryanair-freezes-payments-to-boeing-on-737-max-delivery-delays

[Guest]

The FAA has severely compromised its credibility with its behavior on the 737 Max. It's clear that international aviation administrations no longer trust the FAA's judgement and are not prepared to let this plane fly again in their airspace anytime soon.''

 

Each country will make its own decision about returning the Boeing 737 Max to service, the Federal Aviation Administration said Monday.…

 

The new planes have been grounded since March 13 following two fatal crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia that killed 346 people.

 

The FAA, which had previously certified the 737 Max jets as safe and was once unchallenged as the world's foremost aviation regulator, now faces the very real — and embarrassing — possibility that other countries won't immediately go along when it approves the 737 Max for flight.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/2019/09/23/boeing-737-max-countries-make-their-own-decisions-says-faa/2425183001/

[mike carey]

My question was sarcasm. If this bird is just about to fly again, why in the world is Silk finding a place to store their aircraft now?

The first of the jets arrived in Alice Springs today, flying on a CASA waiver of the grounding. CASA (the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority) approved the aircraft to be flown with experienced Boeing pilots and with the MCAS turned off.

Edited September 30, 2019 by mike carey

[Guest]

So Boeing knew what the best military pilots in the world demanded for safety, but decided to dumb the system down for commercial airlines. Because presumably, the calculations, simulations, and probabilities showed acceptable failure rates. Because employing only one sensor would allow Boeing to fast track FAA approval?

 

By

Alison Sider and

Andrew Tangel / Wall Street Journal

Updated Sept. 29, 2019 3:31 pm ET

 

https://quotes.wsj.com/BA BA -1.20% Boeing Co. BA -1.30% engineers working on a flight-control system for the 737 MAX omitted key safeguards that had been included in an earlier version of the same system used on a military tanker jet, people familiar with the matter said.

Accident investigators have implicated the system, known as MCAS, in two deadly crashes of the jetliner that killed a total of 346 people.

The engineers who created MCAS more than a decade ago for the military refueling plane designed the system to rely on inputs from multiple sensors and with limited power to move the tanker’s nose—which one person familiar with the design described as deliberate checks against the system acting erroneously or causing a pilot to lose control.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/before-737-max-boeings-flight-control-system-included-key-safeguards-

Edited September 30, 2019 by Oaktown

[Guest]

I post this link, without comment:

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-whistleblowers-complaint-says-737-max-safety-upgrades-were-rejected-over-cost/#comments

[+ azdr0710]

have we lost Max?.....last seen in the forum at 7:17pm MST/PDT today......last seen in this thread sometime around the middle of last month

 

this is really sad about the smug complacency at Boeing......once a legendary American company Seattle and the US could be proud of......

 

(FAA is somewhere in there, too)

 

let's take a trip back to simpler, more-"regulated" times......

 

"The Travail Has Been Taken Out Of Travel".......

 

Edited October 3, 2019 by azdr0710

[LivingnLA]

The Max is an example of what happens where companies are focused on short term profits above all else and the government is a pushover thanks to lax regulations and weak regulators. The net result: Boeing created an aerodynamically different plane by bolting huge new engines on the ancient 737 frame and then tried to address how that changed flight characteristics by creating software to monitor the issue and correct it in the background. All without telling pilots anything because they didn't want to risk a new training requirement for pilots.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-boeings-737-max-failed-11553699239

 

Here's an article explaining the fundamental design problems with the 737 Max. I know Boeing was desperate to compete with Airbus for the huge business of Lion Air and other cheap carriers, but this was a huge mistake. They should've either been upfront and transparent about it or built a new plane instead of trying to covertly create a new product from the 737 and claim it was just like the 737.

 

https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/boeing-737-max-unsafe-to-fly-new-scathing-report-by-pilot-and-software-designer-ed5jwi2s8kCuGTAgFXR0GA/

Edited October 4, 2019 by LivingnLA

[Max]

The Max is an example of what happens where companies are focused on short term profits above all else and the government is a pushover thanks to lax regulations and weak regulators.

 

Would be a great argument were it not entirely contrary to fact and unencumbered by evidence. Boeing routinely invests billions of dollars in development of an aircraft to be commercially viable a decade later. They do not have short term focus on anything. A decade or so ago, some of the C level folks discussed trying to take the company private so they wouldn't have to report quarterly earnings and keep short term investors happy. Elephant was just too big do eat though.

 

have we lost Max?.....

 

Still here, but not much to add at this point. Closed minds will remain so.

[LivingnLA]

Would be a great argument were it not entirely contrary to fact and unencumbered by evidence. Boeing routinely invests billions of dollars in development of an aircraft to be commercially viable a decade later. They do not have short term focus on anything. A decade or so ago, some of the C level folks discussed trying to take the company private so they wouldn't have to report quarterly earnings and keep short term investors happy. Elephant was just too big do eat though.

 

Still here, but not much to add at this point. Closed minds will remain so.

 

The Boeing of yesterday that created the 737 is not the Boeing of today that created the Max. The facts speak for themselves, from the Boeing engineer who filed internal complaints to the test pilot who expressed concern during development, or the FAA regulators who caved under political pressure and gave Boeing more and more control over sign offs. Boeing was hyper focused on cutting costs and rapidly deploying the 737 Max over and above any safety concerns. They were terrified of losing Lion Air's business and that fear and drive for profit led them to make multiple terrible choices.

 

Physics doesn't lie. The 737 Max is aerodynamically substantially different from the 737. Boeing tried to use software to account for that because it was faster and cheaper. They then downplayed the new software and convinced everyone pilot training wasn't required and some of the safety features were optional. All to save a buck and get to market faster. It was a serious ethical blunder that cost hundreds of innocent humans their lives.

[Guest]

Appears that Travolta has a Max in his fleet now?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jay-leno-on-john-travoltas-boeing-business-jet-so-far-above-first-class-074646099.html

[gallahadesquire]

The Boeing of yesterday that created the 737 is not the Boeing of today that created the Max. The facts speak for themselves, from the Boeing engineer who filed internal complaints to the test pilot who expressed concern during development, or the FAA regulators who caved under political pressure and gave Boeing more and more control over sign offs. Boeing was hyper focused on cutting costs and rapidly deploying the 737 Max over and above any safety concerns. They were terrified of losing Lion Air's business and that fear and drive for profit led them to make multiple terrible choices.

 

Physics doesn't lie. The 737 Max is aerodynamically substantially different from the 737. Boeing tried to use software to account for that because it was faster and cheaper. They then downplayed the new software and convinced everyone pilot training wasn't required and some of the safety features were optional. All to save a buck and get to market faster. It was a serious ethical blunder that cost hundreds of innocent humans their lives.

Appears that Travolta has a Max in his fleet now?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jay-leno-on-john-travoltas-boeing-business-jet-so-far-above-first-class-074646099.html

I met a fellow at the airport who said exactly the above. He felt it was due to too many McDonald Douglas execs. I would have learned more, but he was mansplaining it all to me and insulting my intelligence.

Edited December 18, 2019 by gallahadesquire

[+ oldNbusted]

Closed minds will remain so.

 

You demonstrate this to everyone here with each of your fact free posts.

[Max]

You demonstrate this to everyone here with each of your fact free posts.

 

Except that I have said several times, I’m playing an investment for a decade at least. Look at the title of this thread. Then explain how the 787 is a failure ten years later.

[+ oldNbusted]

Except that I have said several times, I’m playing an investment for a decade at least. Look at the title of this thread. Then explain how the 787 is a failure ten years later.

 

Non sequitur, moving the goalposts

[+ oldNbusted]

And your name is... Max? Like 737 MAX 8?

 

Coincidence entirely...you'll see my presence here preceded the NG and certainly the MAX-8.

 

Boeing Completes 737 MAX 8 Firm Configuration

 

RENTON, Wash., July 23, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) has completed the firm configuration of the 737 MAX 8. This milestone marks completion of the major trade studies that define the capabilities of the 737 MAX family.

"We have defined the design requirements for the 737 MAX that provide our customers with the most value in the single-aisle market," said Michael Teal, chief project engineer, 737 MAX, Boeing Commercial Airplanes. "We continue to follow our disciplined process to ensure that we have completed all the requirements for the development stage of the program and are ready to begin the detailed design phase."

As detailed designs are completed and released, production can begin. Final assembly of the 737 MAX 8 is scheduled to begin in 2015 with first delivery scheduled for the third quarter of 2017.

The Seattle Times story linked previously details how internal concerns were waved off in 2014:

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-whistleblowers-complaint-says-737-max-safety-upgrades-were-rejected-over-cost/

 

[Michael] Teal, 737 MAX chief project engineer, could not be reached for comment.

 

 

This other story documents how during 2016, Boeing knew MCAS had problems:

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the-inside-story-of-mcas-how-boeings-737-max-system-gained-power-and-lost-safeguards/

 

 

The Max account was created Nov 4, 2016. Out of 189 posts so far, ~77 are in this thread alone.

[LivingnLA]

I met a fellow at the airport who said exactly the above. He felt it was due to too many McDonald Douglas execs. I would have learned more, but he was mansplaining it all tome and insulting my intelligence.

 

That's an interesting observation. I'll have to ask my friends at Boeing about that particular issue. One of the best write-ups I've seen online is by an aerospace engineer at seeking alpha. It's a long read. This paragraph nails it:

 

When an aircraft turns out to have undesired behavior on some spots of the flight envelope, what you then can do is throw the baby out with the bathwater or find a solution. MCAS was that solution. Whether you like it or not, the idea behind MCAS makes perfect sense. The execution, design, certification and information supply regarding this system have been extremely poor. Today, everybody knows about this system because the system was not fail-proof, it lacked robustness to deal with erroneous data. As engineers say, “If you feed garbage into a system, garbage will come out.” That's what happened with MCAS, and there was no proper layering around that to prevent catastrophic failure.

 

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4286602-boeing-737-max-misconceptions-engineers-view

[Max]

You demonstrate this to everyone here with each of your fact free posts.

 

Not sure how your name-calling advances the engineering science either...and as far as I can tell, you've posted precisely zero facts about the aircraft. There have been very few posts here with facts (mine or otherwise)...almost all are opinion. Either the opinion of the person who writes the post, or the opinion described in a linked article like the above one from Seeking Alpha. I think that's kind of the point of a thread like that. Absent a Boeing engineer contributing, it's all opinion.

 

Non sequitur, moving the goalposts

 

Not so much...look at my early posts. This is not a short term investment for me. I've even posted the prices at which I have purchased BA shares.

 

I get it - we fundamentally disagree about whether the aircraft is inherently unstable. As a pilot and frequent commercial passenger, I'll be happy to fly the 737 when they are back in the sky. Just as I was happy to board a 787 last week...again, the original subject of this thread which started a decade ago. My point is that in ten years, the 737 will still be flying I'm confident that my investment will be just fine.

 

The Max account was created Nov 4, 2016. Out of 189 posts so far, ~77 are in this thread alone.

 

Because the subject of this thread is something I find interesting. Max is my name, entirely unrelated to the airplane.

 

Pretty funny...someone above asked why I hadn't posted in this thread in a few days. Now you've taken time to look and see when my account was created and how many times I've posted here.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Max

[mike carey]

Totally unrelated to where the thread has gone, this about whether the A380 will continue to fly in Qantas colours (spoiler: it will).

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/australian-fashion-food-and-design-feature-on-board-upgraded-qantas-a380-fleet/

The type seems to be continuing to fly with a number of carriers. A friend of mine is flying to London from the US in premium economy on a BA A380 next month

[Max]

Totally unrelated to where the thread has gone, this about whether the A380 will continue to fly in Qantas colours (spoiler: it will).

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/australian-fashion-food-and-design-feature-on-board-upgraded-qantas-a380-fleet/

The type seems to be continuing to fly with a number of carriers. A friend of mine is flying to London from the US in premium economy on a BA A380 next month

 

Looking forward to first (and maybe last) A380 flight LHR-IAD this fall.

[mike carey]

Looking forward to first (and maybe last) A380 flight LHR-IAD this fall.

Qantas seems to have a few heavy routes where it uses the A380s. SYD/MEL to LAX, SIN, HKG, SYD to LHR and SYD to DFW. I suspect the pax like them. Going heavy on premium cabins may well keep them profitable.

[+ g56whiz]

That's an interesting observation. I'll have to ask my friends at Boeing about that particular issue. One of the best write-ups I've seen online is by an aerospace engineer at seeking alpha. It's a long read. This paragraph nails it:

 

 

 

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4286602-boeing-737-max-misconceptions-engineers-view

 

This reminds me of an old joke. Traveler ts bound for Frankfort board a Lufthansa plane at JFK. The doors shut and as the plane taxis down the runway, passengers hear the following announcement: "Lufthansa wishes to welcome you aboard the first fully automated flight across the Atlantic. Your flight is being guided remotely. For your convenience all passenger amenities are available to you by pushing the appropriate button on the panel before you. There are no flight attendants aboard. Sit back and relax. We wish to assure you that nothing can go wrong can go wrong can go wrong can . . . . ."

Edited October 4, 2019 by g56whiz

[Max]

Qantas seems to have a few heavy routes where it uses the A380s. SYD/MEL to LAX, SIN, HKG, SYD to LHR and SYD to DFW. I suspect the pax like them. Going heavy on premium cabins may well keep them profitable.

 

Yes and DFW-SYD doesn't work with 744. I think the 788, 789 and 77W have the range but apparently the passenger/cargo mix works for the A380.

[+ oldNbusted]

The Max account was created Nov 4, 2016. Out of 189 posts so far, ~77 are in this thread alone.

 

I should have noted that during the period of time of those 77 posts in this thread, only 24 posts were in other threads.

[+ oldNbusted]

you'll see my presence here preceded ... the MAX-8.

 

This is a lie.

 

your name-calling

 

This is a lie.

 

you've posted precisely zero facts about the aircraft.

 

This is a lie.

 

Absent a Boeing engineer contributing, it's all opinion.

 

This is a lie.

 

Not so much

 

This is a strawman.

 

we fundamentally disagree about whether the aircraft is inherently unstable.

 

This is a strawman.